"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ...
Read more

As a TV pro, Roger Ailes is routinely praised in the press for his Midas touch. According to years of fawning coverage, Ailes has an uncanny ability to tap the programming pulse of the public. If that's true, now would be a good time for him to find his magic stroke because he just signed a contract reportedly worth more than $20 million annually, and two of his most important properties are flailing.

Fox's latest Nielsen numbers are bad. Really bad. Its worst in 12 years. And early indications are the slump may be part of a larger, systemic problem that could cause bigger headache as fast-climbing MSNBC continues to post gains.

President Obama's first term proved to be a ratings winner for Fox News as the channel gleefully projected the inner demons of the right wing and marketed itself as the final defender of freedom. Early 2013 indicators though, suggest that ratings cycle may be played out.

Question: Does Ailes the programming guru have a Plan B?

That's not the Fox chief's only problem. Ailes also runs Fox Business, whose cable ratings remain anemic, and whose entire audience of 25-54 viewers can often fit inside a hockey arena, despite the fact Fox Business is available in 60 million homes coast to coast.

<quoted text>This should be obvious but the voting public is deluded into thinking there's a recognizable difference between the two major parties.What do you think is the "one way out"?

By the end of this term, the working class will have realized they've been duped, if they haven't already. By then, a third party will seem the only way out. I think something like the "Second Amendment Party" might turn some heads.

<quoted text>The regressive, vacuous ideology of neocons"My country — always right, never wrong": It's the least thoughtful and most primitive form of patriotismhttp://theweek.com/article/index/239569/the-r...how long before they figure out they're in control of nothing?you got that right. but let's not tell them. the cluster-Chuck has been a real hoot. watching self important people who know Hagel will be the SOD no matter what they have to say about it is priceless.

I find it embarrassing. Neocons embarrass me as an American, right-wingers embarrass me as a human.

Hillary Clinton stands atop of the Democratic 2016 scrum, set to resume where Bill left off. A second Clinton candidacy would likely put the white vote in play and jeopardize the GOP’s dominance in the Old Confederacy. Recent polls put Hillary ahead of possible Republican challengers in vote-rich Texas and in Kentucky, home of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Tea Party favorite Rand Paul.

One day after American officials in Benghazi were murdered and their bodies dragged through the streets, President Obama saw no reason to alter his campaign schedule. He attended a fundraiser in Las Vegas where he told a crowd of 8,000 adoring fans about the “tough day that we’ve had today.” Then it was back to the class warfare rhetoric that was the hallmark of his re-election campaign.In a “60 Minutes” interview with Steve Kroft, Obama referred to the four dead Americans including the first ambassador killed since the 1979 murder of Adolph Dubs in Afghanistan during the Carter administration, as “bumps in the road”.The mainstream media ignored the callousness on the part of this president remaining true to form.“This press corps serves at the pleasure of this White House and President, led by people like Ezra Klein and JournoList, where they plot the stories together,” said Pat Caddell, a Democrat strategist...."true to form", indeed.

<quoted text>You'd have to point to one liberally biased news commentator source who regularly has both sides of any issue represented.Otherwise, you're just brainwashed, sorry to say.

Pat Caddell?

there are many in the media who can see both sides. your acknowledgment that there are conservatives who can see both sides seems to be lacking. but why would you want to answer to a post from a real conservatives who isn't a tea party idiot?

<quoted text>"But other critics contend that this evidence doesn’t necessarily mean the IPCC models are wrong.“It’s important to keep in mind that there are natural short-term variations in global temperature that happen right alongside human-induced warming,” asserts Aaron Huertas, press secretary at the Union of Concerned Scientists.“For instance, it would have been impossible for the IPCC to predict if a volcanic eruption might temporarily cool the Earth, as the Mount Pinatubo eruption did in 1991.”These were models. Not someone purposefully putting out wrong numbers.

The key words in this paragraph, "....impossible for the IPCC to predict..." pretty much sums it up.

Nuance and consensus are hallmarks of Chuck Hagel’s school of thought—and antithetical to the Tea Party GOP.

....if Republican realists can’t go along, and if they can’t frame realism in the emotional language the Fox-fed GOP base demands, what can they do? Confronted by Tea Party senators and billionaire-backed pundits who insist that one cannot be both a realist and a Republican, perhaps the only sensible course is not to be a Republican.

....At least a few conservatives now recognize that Republicans suffer for epistemic closure. They were genuinely shocked at Romney’s loss because they ignored every poll not produced by a right-wing pollster such as Rasmussen or approved by right-wing pundits such as the perpetually wrong Dick Morris. Living in the Fox News cocoon, most Republicans had no clue that they were losing or that their ideas were both stupid and politically unpopular.

I am disinclined to think that Republicans are yet ready for a serious questioning of their philosophy or strategy. They comfort themselves with the fact that they held the House (due to gerrymandering) and think that just improving their get-out-the-vote system and throwing a few bones to the Latino community will fix their problem. There appears to be no recognition that their defects are far, far deeper and will require serious introspection and rethinking of how Republicans can win going forward. The alternative is permanent loss of the White House and probably the Senate as well, which means they can only temporarily block Democratic initiatives and never advance their own.

"The tragic deaths of a US ambassador and three others in Benghazi, Libya, have become this presidential election campaign's Quemoy Islands crisis, this year's USS Pueblo seizure, this year's Iran hostage crisis. And, as in all those other foreign-policy dust-ups, the event not only has been blown way out of proportion, it's not being compared in context to similar events of much greater proportion.

I won't get into describing the earlier incidents I've listed above. Just go Google them, and bear in mind that if you don't know anything about them, that's strong evidence that they weren't as important historically as they seemed in those presidential campaign years.

Regarding Benghazi, the most comparable incident affecting a presidential election was the 1983 terrorist truck bombing of a US Marine barracks in Lebanon. Read past the explosive gas cloud for the details:

in the 1983 attack, a terrorist truck bomb killed 241 American soldiers on a peace-keeping mission in that country's vicious civil war. Sixty other Americans were injured. The organization Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the bombing. The bombing was, according to Wikipedia:

... the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since the Battle of Iwo Jima of World War II, the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States military since the first day of the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War, and the deadliest single attack on Americans overseas since World War II.

Reagan at first insisted the US peacekeeping force would not be chased out of Lebanon after the horrific toll on our troops. Yet in short order, the US military contingent indeed was withdrawn -- first, to the safety of offshore ships, and then, within four months, away from the region altogether, despite Reagan's earlier pledge.

Making this worse: Reagan's own defense secretary had warned in advance against placing the Marines in Lebanon, saying it represented a huge security threat. After the pull-out, the Reagan administration sent a couple of warships to shell insurgent positions in Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere from sea, but that action was judged as largely ineffective in punishing any terrorist threat, although it did further damage sections of Beirut and other areas inhabited by innocents.

That followup act arguably was Reagan's own instance of George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq. As justification for the later invasion, the Bush administration trumped up what were later proved to be false tales of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction ; the Reagan administration unwittingly anticipated Bush, waving around "evidence" of a stealth communist takeover of the Grenadian commonwealth. It's a wonder neither of them yelled "Remember the Maine!"

So there's the difference in American presidential politics over a span of 30 years: Republican presidents make up shit, starting wars that kill many innocents, in part to mask their incompetence -- for instance, in letting Marines die in terrorist attacks or allowing terrorist-seized airliners to crash into US skyscrapers. As for a Democratic president, on whose watch four State Department staffers died when terrorists apparently [the investigation continues] torched a lightly defended diplomatic mission? Why, that's practically cause for impeachment!."

So you didn't mind when the hero of Grenada got 241 Marines killed in Beirut??

But 4 dead in Benghazi drives you over the edge.

This is as stupid as your contention that Terri Schiavo wasn't brain dead.

How is driving up prices and increases taxes on the working middle class helping the poor or the economy?According to CNBC Financial News, the stock market has gone up by 30% since Obama was elected to office. People in Europe are now using their currency to buy cheap dollars. They then use these dollars to invest in the U.S. stock market and this drives up the value of U.S. stocks for everyone who owns them.How is this helping the poor and the economy?

Because what you describe is a fairytale, not an ounce of truth to it. Don't which blog or chain email you dredged it from but it uses the snapshot approach favored by neocons to manipulate the outrage of the moronic right. Maybe you just posted an old article but the DJIA has more than doubled from its intraday low of 6500 in March of 2009. The Euro was trading at 1.3 Euro to the Dollar in January, 2009. Today its trading at 1.3 Euro to the Dollar, up off its 2010 low of 1.2 Euro to the Dollar.

Hillary Clinton just said the “protesters” dragged his body to the hospital.It sure looks like a strange way to drag an obviously dead man to safety!

Link it up ashole.

Woods and a couple of his CIA cohorts went to the consulate in hopes of rescuing the ambassador, Smith and the other SD employees who were in a different building. The located and retrieved Smith's body but not the ambassador's and later learned that the ambassador was taken to a nearby hospital by Libyans and where efforts were made to resuscitate.

There are photos of the ambassador being carried to and loaded into a vehicle.

You've become a lying pos__on the one hand defending right wing media and then plastering they're outright fabrications on this thread. You are no better that DB or any of the other trolls.

<quoted text>Of course, this is not true. FOX keeps the folks informed on issues the MSM will not tell them.The fact that you dismiss any network presenting an opposing point of view and who might very well be right proves you've been brainwashed.It would be easy to prove the half-truths and corrpution on the part of the mainstream in many instances and the crticism by more than just conservatives.You would be hard-pressed to find one incident on FOX that was significant enough to counter the evidence mounting against the MSM.

Sure but you'll use Fox to "prove the half-truths and corruption on the part of the mainstream". I'm sure you view MSNBC the same way sane people view Fox. The difference is that MSNBC is not the least bit shy about their leftist slant, their slogan is "Lean Forward" clearly indicating a progressive agenda. Fox lies every time they trot out "We report, you decide ..." and "Fair and Balanced". Putting a "liberal" up to be shouted down by O'Reilly only appears "Fair and Balanced" to the unbalanced right.

If they're so 'fair and balanced', why did not even one FAUX bobblehead predict the results of the election correctly??

Fact is, they lied about 'momentum', a shift towards Rmoney, pols that consistently showed Rmoney ahead, right up til he lost!!

You calling Dick Morris 'the other side'?? HAHAHAHAHA

Fact is, FAUX is propaganda, generated by Roger Ailes, an old Republiclown operative.

There is far more diversity of view on 'MTP', Chris Matthews, George what's his name, etc. than on FAUX.

You wouldn't know, you're a FAUXBOT.

While Chris Wallace has improved, he's still too soft on right wingers on his show.

The rest of FAUX is propaganda, esp. your hero, the sexual harasser.

What if that young lady was your daughter??

BTW, FAUX ratings have droopped like a rock since Obama won re-election.

History 101 wrote:

<quoted text>You lost your argument before you began.No other news source besides Fox regularly has the opposing side's point of view while pointing out the other side's point of view with respect and civility.The one-sided liberally biased news outlets not only avoids having any opposing point of view but what they say about the opposition in their abscence would make your blood curdle.

<quoted text>You need to dig through the massive pages of this monstrosity called health care reform and find this part:The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act calls for the establishment of a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.The new institute’s purpose is to carry out “comparative clinical effectiveness research,” which is defined in the law as evaluating and comparing “health outcomes” and “clinical effectiveness, risks and benefits” of two or more medical treatments or services.The purpose of the research is purportedly for the government to determine which treatments work best so that money is not spent on less effective treatments.It consists of a Board of Governors including 19 members representing key players in health care appointed by the Government Accountability Office as well as the directors of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes of Health.The PCORI is to consider “the effect on national expenditures associated with a health treatment, strategy, or health condition.”I kid you not.

Who convinced you that this amounted to a "death panel"? Its a change up since the original Palinesque death panel which was the provision that physicians get paid for end of life counseling. I remember proving to you that it was a lie, guess the rest of your party got on board and had to find another definition of "death panel".

<quoted text>This is a big fat gray area of morals and ethics. Sure, you don't perform a Knee-Joint Replacement or Lung Transplant on a feeble 90 year old. But, then again, that same 90 year old should have access to some sort of legal advocate to help make those types of decisions for them, too. A doctor whose only seeks profit from elderly patients is a predator and one who seeks to alleviate suffering is truly a professional.In the middle of all this sits an ambulance chasing lawyer. The older a person gets, the more the circling wolves close in around a dying campfire....

Any doctor should have the freedom to make medical judgments independent of the government or patient "legal advocates." The patient is always free (at least until Obamacare) to find another physician with a different opinion.

<quoted text>You're just bat sh!t crazy DB. First of all there was no suicide note. A torn draft resignation was found in Foster's briefcase but being a draft wouldn't have had a signature anyway.Second, the body was not dumped at the entrance to CIA headquarters, it was found at Ft. Marcy Park three miles to the south. Physical evidence gathered and photographed by the United States Park police show that Vince Foster killed himself at the spot where the body was discovered. Blood spatter, the amount of blood at the scene and discovered in the body bag when the body arrived at the morgue eliminates any possibility that the body was dumped.www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/specia...The rest of your fantasy is just that a delusional pipe dream without any factual basis.

Dupie thinks the CIA lacks the ability to stage a suicide and rig an investigation.

The nitwits are still trying to make something out of Benghazi, while they still downplay the 241 Marines got killed in Beirut or the 1,200 dead in Iraq for some stupid failed 'surge' that accomplished nothing.

She has gotten fsr more nasty in her opinions, I was hoping we'd lost her after the multiple Carol's showed up.

But she remains, peddling her ignorance and lies.

She's buddies with DB, and he's the craziest one here. He's never told the truth. Carol slips up and tells the truth on occasion.

Good news is that it's easy to push back against her lies and hatred for her fellow citizens.

Realtime wrote:

<quoted text>Link it up ashole.Woods and a couple of his CIA cohorts went to the consulate in hopes of rescuing the ambassador, Smith and the other SD employees who were in a different building. The located and retrieved Smith's body but not the ambassador's and later learned that the ambassador was taken to a nearby hospital by Libyans and where efforts were made to resuscitate.There are photos of the ambassador being carried to and loaded into a vehicle.You've become a lying pos__on the one hand defending right wing media and then plastering they're outright fabrications on this thread. You are no better that DB or any of the other trolls.

Democrats might be happy that Sarah Palin will no longer be paid $1 million a year by Fox News, but based on what happened when Glenn Beck left the conservative network, Bill Maher isn't thrilled to see her go.After Beck left Fox, he took his "patented brand of apocalyptic race baiting" to the Internet and started charging his audience around $10 a month. Then, in 2012, he made $80 million.If Palin takes a cue from Beck or Rush Limbaugh, she too could make a lot more money off her fans than she did at Fox. But Maher feels that's exactly what makes these pundits "con men":"They don't care about winning elections; they care about separating rubes from their money. They discovered that there's a fortune to be made by keeping a small portion of America under the illusion that they are always under attack, from Mexicans or ACORN or Planned Parenthood or gays or takers, global warming hoaxers; it doesn't matter. They don't want a majority; they want a mailing list, a list of the kind of gullible 'Honey Boo Boos' out there who think there's a 'War on Christmas' and the Socialist policies of our Kenyan President are so disastrous that the end of the world is coming."http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/02/bill...

I didn't believe you so I went and checked. Sure enough,$9.95/month to subscribe to Blaze TV.

What a buncha idiots! One thing to suffer advertisers and watch the show for virtually nothing but to shell out cash for that crap? I used to feel kinda sorry for them but they deserve whatever they get.

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.